[General] (no subject)

Thu Jan 28 04:13:51 PST 2016

Hi Andrew

Question:  It seems that your premise requires that there exist a positron for every electron.  Where are all these positrons?

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 4:39 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] (no subject)

Dear John D,

For years, I thought along the same lines as you (and most of the group). However, I finally realized that there was a problem. I had assumed that the E-field concentration in the center of the coiled photon (with field lines always pointing in or out) reached a critical density and forced/distorted space into a massive region that would then accompany the charged creature of the twisted photon.

Then three things forced me to change my mind (at least in part).

1.	E-fields are the gradient of a potential. They are a result of a difference in potential and, unlike magnetic field lines that are continuous thru the magnet, E-field lines must terminate. They don't create the potential unless they are associated with something with inertia (to create a resonant circuit). Therefore, they cannot create the permanent, high, energy density of the electron.
2.	for a lepton to have spin in any direction (in 3-D), it must have a spin axis along a 4th dimension (otherwise relativity plays hob with the supposedly constant value of spin). 
3.	leptons (electrons and positrons in our case) are always created in pairs

Thus, I concluded that the spin axis must be along time and this is a vortex into time. There must be a gradient for the field lines to follow; therefore an electron and positron must be created at the same time and must be connected along the time axis (just as the falaco soliton has two vortices connected under water). I believe that this is the definition of a wormhole.

I haven't worked out the details yet, but there must be a time (or polarity) reversal between the lepton event horizons so that the field lines can be continuous both in the wormhole and outside in 3-space. While I like the 'doughnut', I assume that it is extended into a 'tube' with an electron represented by one end and a positron by the other.

Andrew

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 2:00 PM, John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com <mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com> > wrote:

Andrew:

What I have in mind is something like your latter description. Start with one sinusoidal wave moving back and forth between two gedanken mirrors. Then move the mirrors closer and closer together until they’re half a wavelength apart. Then the positive field variation is countered by the negative field variation, and there’s no field variation any more. It looks like there’s no wave there either. But when you kick away one of the mirrors, the sine wave departs at c from a standing start. Because it was always there. After that, confine the wave such that it goes round and round in a mirror box, as per http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.06478. After that replace the box with a wave moving through itself in a twisting turning path forever displacing its own path into a closed path. Like this:

…but “pump up the inner tube” so it looks more spherical. The black line marks out one wavelength, and a 720 degree rotation. It’s a stable vortex, but there’s no wormhole.  

Regards

JohnD

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield <mailto:general-bounces%2Bjohnduffield> =btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> ] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg
Sent: 27 January 2016 10:58
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >

Subject: Re: [General] (no subject)

John D,

I like most of the things you've said recently. However, I think that you need to reexamine this last (or describe it more clearly) "

Take a field variation and wrap it round a spin-½ path, and what you then have is a standing field."  A standing wave results from colliding waves (2 waves moving in opposite directions). Are you describing waves or only the field components? 

If you are describing waves, then with following a 1 wavelength circumference the result is a 'resonant' wave moving at the velocity of light in the local medium. This is observable as the whispering gallery mode in microspheres.

If you are describing fields, then, with a 1/2 wavelength circumference and 180 degree rotation of the wave's polarization vector, the result is a 'resonant' wave moving at the velocity of light in the local medium, but with the same field pointing out (or in) all of the time. If that were all, then, because of the modulated field intensity, the resulting E-field would be directional (anisotropic). However, field concentrations are an energy (mass?) concentration that alters the local distortion of space (refractive index). The redistribution of the resultant, to lower the total energy by spreading the field intensity uniformly in space, gives the isotropic field of an electron at rest. The result is a 3-D vortex in 4-space that gives stability and spin in all 3-space directions (not just along the selected axis). The vortex formed in the creation of an electron/positron pair connects the leptons by a sub-micro-wormhole that does not appear in our measurements of field. The stable vortex is matter. The worm-hole (vortex) can be infinitely extended or 'diluted' in 3-space; however, I believe that it is the source of stable matter.

It is the relativistic effects on the bound photon (the electron, when in motion) that provides distortion of the field ('flattening' of the electron E-fields in the direction of motion) and consequent raising of the total energy to increase the effective mass of the electron and is displayed as inertia. Since there are no losses in space (within the concept of conservative system), once the acceleration stops, the distortion at velocity v remains, until another force changes it back or further.

Thus, acceleration always changes mass as well as velocity. The change is not observable for non-relativistic velocities. Mass is equal to the force required to change the velocity of an object (m = F/a). Force is the gradient of the potential (F = -dV/dr) and so it can convert potential energy into kinetic energy (velocity). But force also gives the change in momentum (F = dp/dt = vdm/dt + mdv/dt). Normally, dm/dt is too small to measure and can be ignored. The acceleration, dv/dt, is the observable feature. However, the bigger the mass (for a given acceleration) the bigger the momentum or inertia. All of this depends on the change in 'shape' of the electrons (and positrons, the relativistic constituents of quarks) in matter under acceleration.

Andrew

________________________________________

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:34 AM, John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com <mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com> > wrote:

Wolf:

Take a field variation and wrap it round a spin-½ path, and what you then have is a standing field. A charged particle. It doesn’t blow apart because light is displacement current, and displacement current does what it says on the can. Light displaces its own path into a closed path. IMHO pair production and the wave nature of matter should have made all this common knowledge a long time ago. In atomic orbitals electrons exist as standing waves <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital#Electron_properties> . Kick an electron out of an orbital, and it still exists as a standing wave. Standing wave, standing field.   

Regards

JohnD

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com> 
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> &unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com> 
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> &unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160128/c2ec93ce/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 13499 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160128/c2ec93ce/attachment.jpeg>